and provided them the opportunity and the assistance to find housing. that's where some cases people did move out of the area and did not return. so, we're fortunate to have the ability to do the initial construction on-site and then and allow people to move from their existing units and demolish those units. so, we're minimizing the off-site relocation. >> thanks. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. i'm also really happy to support this legislation. i think that san francisco is leading the way to correct all of the wrongs of hope 6 -- maybe not all of them, but i think in particular you hear horror stories across the country about whole communities were broken up because of the hope 6 process. so, i wanted to ask either staff or a representative from supervisor olague's office. at the time the report had been written and sent to us there was a recommendation for, i

think it was, not to make -- not to make a recommendation, but dominica today talked about the changes that had been made to the legislation. so, i don't mean to put you on the spot, but does staff feel like we can make a recommendation today? is that what you were waiting for for those particular changes? >> i think the department thinks the concept of the legislation is great. the reason we said not to make a recommendation because the legislation had not been finalized yet and introduced and we felt uncomfortable telling you to endorse something that wasn't actually there. my understanding is it hasn't been actually introduced, although they do have the language ready. i think dominica can speak more to that, so. >> so, the actual amendments that will be made to the legislation that was sent to you will be introduced at the land use committee on october 1st. so, they have not been introduced at the board level,

but they've just now been finally drafted. and i think for the most part, all parties -- i can speak for supervisor olague's office. she has accepted i think all but one of the changes. so, she's certainly happy to make these amendments on monday, but then also if there are additional points to negotiate, then we're willing to discuss that at the land use hearing. there were a couple of people that called the office and asked if there were guidelines that would be issued. and, so, we're entertaining the idea of drafting some guidelines that would help outline the process a little bit better. so, that's something that would be forthcoming, but i think that would really require the department to issue the policies and not necessarily need to be a part of the actual legislation. >> okay, thank you. so, i think as a policy i'm very supportive. whether or not the commission can take an action today, it's really heartening to see mr.

lee and mr. alvarez here working with everyone in the city family to make this a reality. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you. i echo what my fellow commissioners are saying. i am strongly in support of the proposed ordinance. the version which is in front of us, just to remind you, is indeed [speaker not understood]. so, if there are any changes or ideas which have been added or subtracted, we are not privy to that except i express the same comfort with you here and mr. olson. you are here basically to layout the game board. i want to just inject to illustrate commissioner bruce's concern. i was working hard for katrina in norxv. -- new orleans. here we were looking strongly

at hud housing projects and the was to assess what state of damage they were. and basically do what we thought was -- we thinking them for the reuse of the people were displaced by katrina. and to upgrade ideas, using hud standards and all the things you need to do, all we were told was that this site would be remission for higher and better use. i don't need to say more. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. in looking at this, i see one of these changes has not been accepted. i think it's probably better if it's possible once the legislation is finalized if they could come back to us and we won't set an absolute continuance date because we don't know when that would be, but have a look at it when it's in its final state rather than trying to vote on something that isn't finalized. we all are supportive of the concepts being discussed here, but we want to see what its final form is.

that would be my feeling. >> commissioner hillis. >> since we are not required to take action [speaker not understood], can we endorse the general policy and the spirit of the ordinance, the right to return? >> i would move that's correct then. -- that, then. >> to support the policy here to give residents the right to return. >> not necessarily endorse the specifics of the legislation. >> commissioners, you absolutely have the right to endorse the policy that -- the general policy that you believe is before you. even though the ordinance itself is not finalized before you, there is nothing -- there will be no paper related to this. it's just you're endorsing a

policy that's been verbalized. >> ms. rodgers? >> i believe this was calendar for action and we didn't prepare a resolution. i think that we could prepare a resolution based on the information in the report and based upon the commission's articulation in the motion that they want to support as a concept in the policy behind the ordinance. that would be permissible for the commission secretary. i don't understand why you think they could not do that. >> because it's not before them. they don't have it. >> i passed out -- they have the ordinance in the packet and then we passed out the amendments from supervisor olague's staff. [multiple voices] >> they have a draft resolution before them? >> they don't have a draft resolution. >> that's my point. okay. if the city attorney [speaker

not understood], go ahead and adopt something they don't have [speaker not understood], i'm fine with it. hold on just a minute. >> kate stacey in the city attorney's office. it seems that there are really two options. one is that the commission's action would certainly show up in the minutes for this action item. alternatively, the second option would be for the commission to articulate the basis for the resolution if you've already articulated some reason in the record, and then direct staff to prepare a resolution setting forth those reasons that the commission has set forward, or you can articulate those reasons right now for the resolution if you prefer a resolution. but your action will show up in

the agenda in the minutes on the agenda that will be published. >> or we could not take action in the vote, but still support the general direction, correct? >> i'm more in favor of what president fong is suggesting. we don't know what this actual form is going to take. i haven't had a chance to read all the details of the legislation. i would be more comfortable in waiting -- supporting the concept which we've all supported and just, you know, encourage them to move forward with with working with the mayor's office to come in with something that is good legislation. if it come back to us for a vote, fine. if it has to just go to the board of supervisors, then, of course, we've all spoken that we think it's the right thing to be doing. but i don't know the details yet. >> commissioner sugaya. >> would this return? i'm just asking. it's not a planning code

change. [multiple voices] >> it's really up to you. it's a question of timing. the board can move forward without your recommendation. it's not a planning code. >> right. i think it's the understanding that the commission is supporting the idea of returning back to the housing. and i think we've heard from the mayor's office and housing authority that everyone is on board. i don't have a problem in supporting the idea. >> good. commissioner moore. >> so, i would leave it with the way of president fong summarized it and leave it up to the expert and the mayor's office and others to kind of fine tune what needs to be done in order to make this a correct ordinance. >> commissioners, your hearing report summary and your minutes will indicate your support of the general principles and

policies that have been offered which you will entertain the resolution when it is put before you. >> correct, when and if. >> and, commissioners, do you take a vote? >> just to be clear, are you asking that come back later or not? >> if it's possible, it would always be good to see it. >> so, do you want to have a hearing on it or do you want to just give your report or memo in the final form of the legislation? >> a report would be sufficient. >> we'll do it that way. >> would you care to take a vote now so the record will show that you voted, you actually took a vote indicating your support? >> sure, thank you. >> is there a motion? >> [inaudible]. >> okay. >> second it. >> thank you. thank you very much. commissioners, on the motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner? >> aye.

>> commissioner hill is? >> i don't know what the motion is. >> yes, to endorse the city policy, to establish facility city policy to provide tenants the right to return to revitalized public housing. >> i thought we were voting on not having it come back to us. >> no, just support of the policy. >> okay. that's a yes, correct? thank you. commissioner wu? >> yes. >> exhumefong? >> unanimously yes. * commissioner fong thank you, commissioners. the record will show you support the policy many >> thank you. >> commissioners, you are now on items 12 a, b and c. 12 a is case no. 2009.07 24 d at 28 33 to 28 35 fillmore street mandatory discretionary review on demolition permit. planning commission is still in

session. thank you. item number 12 b is case no. [speaker not understood] for 28 33 to 28 35 fillmore, manned industry dr on the new construction of that project. and 12 c is case no. 2009.07 24 v for 28 33 to 28 35 fillmore and 2800 vallejo street, request for variances. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i ask the board for recusal because the company is i work for [speaker not understood] evaluation of the property. >> recuse commissioner sugaya. on the motion to recuse mr guy commissioner moore? >> aye. >> [speaker not understood]. >> commissioner sugaya is recused. >> good afternoon again, department staff. the case before you is

mandatory discretionary review for requirements of planning code section 317. the proposal is to demolish the two unit two-story basement building located at 28 33 fillmore street and construct a new two unit two-story building with a partially covered roof deck. the roof deck will extend over the property line dividing 28 33 fillmore and 2300 vallejo street and serve as open space for both the proposed building and 2300 vallejo street. the project includes a minor lot line adjustment between the two lots and requires front setbacks, rear yard, substandard lot, parking and dwelling units for variances from the planning code. the department is recommending that the commission take discretionary review and deny the project. the reason the department is recommending this approval are the proposal would not preserve existing housing or conserve the neighborhood character. the project proposes to

demolish two two-bedroom rent controlled units and replace them with two studio units one of which will not have adequate exposure. the project will not result in a net gain of dwelling units. the project will result in a net loss of bedrooms. the project will not create family size dwelling units. the proposal will demolish two naturally affordable units that are also subject to rent control and the subject property is at its maximum density for the sunni district therefore the project cannot be considered info housing on an under utilized lot. since the case report has gone out, 10 letters of support were forwarded to the department and i have passed those out to you and that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> project sponsor. can i get the overhead? commissioners, thank you. andrew junius for the project sponsor property owner dennis [speaker not understood]. i want to take you back to 1954

for just a moment. on the screen we have the lot that exists or basically the site plan as it is today back in 1954. it should be showing a red box. the entire lot along fillmore street was one cingular lot. the beautifully historic home sitting at 2300 vallejo built in 1899 was the only home on the lot and the rear portion of the lot represented by the big yellow box there was the yard. in 1955 the city allowed a two unit apartment building to be constructed in the rear yard. effectively dramatically increasing the density on the site and eliminating every square foot of open space. so, in a lot of ways this case is about open space. what we are proposing here and working our way through the system here is to deal with planning code section 317, deal with the affordable issues the mayor talked about in second and restore a significant amount of really usable open

space to these three units that have essentially no open space at all. so, now fast forward to 2005 when my client dennis purchased this home. you're going to hear from dennis tonight. he wanted to acquire an historic home. he wanted to do some nice renovations. he did that. he bought the home in 2005. he's going to show you some pictures and tell you what he's done. around 2007-2008 lucky break, the two units next door became available. and he decided to purchase them with the long-term goal, not realizing how long it was going to take or how long it would take to get here, but long term goal of trying to assemble these lots and trying to do what is proposed before you which is create an open space that works for the three units, large house proposed on the two units. so, the proposal, i think there is a little confusion here. the proposal that is actually before you wasn't necessarily reertionved in the staff

report. i do hope you looked at our letter. i think the crux of what we're talking about here is the replacement of the units and the replacement of two exiteding rent control dwelling units with two brand-new code complying below market rate units that mr. -- dennis is willing to restrict with a recorded nsr as below market rate units. i'd like to focus on that. i think that's what makes this a special unique opportunity and special project where we're actually going to take what is presumably affordable housing. we all know how rental housing works and represent control works in san francisco. rent control is vacancy dee controlled. once the unit is vacant the landlord can move to market rate. so, i completely agree many of the city's policies with respect to planning code 317 and the retention of affordable housing centers around the retention of the city's existing and somewhat dwindling stock of rent control housing. that is an important goal. we are eliminating rent control

housing. in this case that's what we're asking to you do. what we're going to replace it with is what we think is better. we are going to replace this with not rent control housing where rents can go up and down depending on vacancies, we'll replace it with two below market rate units. the process in the code has gotten extremely complex with respect to dwelling unit mergers and demolitions. 317 is very comprehensive. there are supposed to be -- there are 16 factors here before you. i don't have time to go through all 16 factors. what i do want to focus on are the factors that i believe are the big issue, you know, the really big picture issue of affordability. and those start with aye tier -- criterion 7 existing housing to preserve cultural and economic neighborhood diversity. we're not preserving housing. we're replacing housing. but i think as i just said, with the bmr units, we are increasing the economic diversity of this neighborhood. pacific heights does not have a

lot of below market rate housing. number 9 talks about the -- whether the project protects relative afford ability of existing housing. really unique case in front of you, interesting proposal. we think a generous proposal to make the housing on-site not only new, but more affordable and permanently affordable. whether the project increases the number of permanently affordable units that is factor number 10 governed by section now it's 415 the section that's 315. that's what we're doing. we're giving the city two -- we're creating two bmr units that will be governed by the market rate housing -- sorry, will be covered by the mayor's office housing. from two others, you'll hear from dennis, the owner and project sponsor here. all hear from our excellent architect, a number of these issues under 317 deal with architecture, neighborhood character, whether the project promotes construction of well designed housing to enhance existing neighborhood

character. we really believe it does. we've got a beautiful new modern design. plans are in your packet. we'd love to show you. thank you. >> public comment, yes. commissioners, i'm david gast, principals of gast architects. we've been working with dennis since 2006 renovating the existing house which you see in front of you here, fillmore on the corner. below it the two existing units that are the subject of this property. you can see that the usable open space is basically none on the existing lot for the two units.

for the main house there is a small deck on top here and a small deck off the master bedroom which provides second means of egress via the fire scape down the grade. there is also a 10-foot driveway here that enters into the garage that you're looking at there ferment. this is a felt owe in the back of the house. you can see what it was before. the second of the two units were placed on the property in 1955. this is the two units that we're proposing to put at the back of the house. the white lines represent the outline of the existing building. we are providing units that are more contemporary in their character, differentiating them from the historic resource. this is the main building on vallejo street. we're picking up on the material that we used on the main house. the roof of the main house is copper.

the roof is the bay, the roof of the front entry. we're doing copper at the driveway entrance here, garage door. also on the side of the building on the side here. we're dogwood bays in white that echoeses wood bays on the main building. we're doing a brick base to the billion which picks up the brick at the base of the building and carries that forward into the new building. we're doing glass railings on the deck here that provide light and air to the adjacent properties. and, so, we believe that the new building is in keeping with both the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood, but also in keeping with the character of the existing building and scale with what's going on in the neighborhood. what we're trying to create is open space at the top of the building. we have two units down below. one here and one down partially

below the street. from the other side of the property you can see the two units again, and the roof deck here. the roof deck is 950 square feet providing usable open space for both the main house and the two units which are served by a spiral staircase that goes up to the roof from each of the units. this building also is collecting a lot of code deficiencies that exist in the existing building and building it to current standards. sustainable construction. >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you. i'm dennis, the owner of 2300 and 28 33-35 fillmore street. i want to thank the planning commission for listening to my rather unique proposal. i bought the pa va hoe street house in 2005.

it was in fairly poor condition and began meticulous restoration of this turn of the century [speaker not understood] designed home. my architects david gast and myself put a lot of thought into restoring this house including maintaining the 19th century flooring, the molding, the paneling. we performed extensive structural work to make sure the property remains in perfect condition the next hundred years. i'm not the developer. this was a carefully thought out process i believe was presented to the potentially historic neighborhood and san francisco's architectural heritage. this is my home. i'm part of this neighborhood. i know everybody on the block. i couldn't imagine finding better neighbors. my neighbors here i hope attest to that. the property at 28 35 fillmore street was the original historical garden for the property. when i bought it in 2006 my goal became to find a compromise between original historical use which obviously i'm very passionate about while

being mindful of the needs of the city. after several drafts, david, dennis the other architect involved came up with the the fantastic design that came up with outdoor space part of the original property while maintaining housing. i've lived in san francisco a long time and i know priority number one is the maintaining of affordable housing and maintaining rent control on this property. so, when we decided to do the development, my first thought is we need to make sure this remains under rent control. we worked with the city attorney's office for about a year to see if we could keep this property under rent control while still doing the development. when that didn't come to fruition, my attorneys proposed this rather novel approach to ensuring that market controls are put in place on the property and that affordable housing is not just maintained, but is actually added to the city and this neighborhood in specific. all of nigh neighbors are aware of the project. they love the design. and all of the neighboring households support the new construction and welcome it to the neighborhood and i hope you

support this project as well. thank you for your time. >> thank you. any additional speakers? yes. i'm audrey carlson and i live on that very block and i've lived there since 1984. a number of years ago prior to dennis' buying that lot, i opposed the division of that two-unit -- it's on 00 square feet. it didn't make sense, the proposal, and so the planning commission said, well, it doesn't really change the character of the area and so approved dividing off the 700 square foot two-unit property from that main house. so, i really look at this as a correction of a problem that happened before, is that really should have stayed as part of that -- of the main house. dennis has done fabulous work

on his house and the neighborhood, and we're a very close little group on our block. and support everything he's done. he's done beautiful restoration. the two units has always been kind of a funny thing, and he will make it something that's wonderful to have on our block again. thank you. a thank you. -- >> thank you. any other speakers, public comment? okay, public portion is closed. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i like the picture of the cable car from 1912. maybe we can restore that. it's pretty sleep block to drive up which is a hazard especially when you have drivers who aren't used to driving on hills in front of you. and even the 22 fillmore veers off to steiner street because of the steepness there. but that's a project for another day. this is an interesting concept. i don't think i've ever seen a case like this where a owner

has offered electively to create two below market rate units without any requirement to do so. and i think it's a good one because, as was pointed out, even though they're rent controlled, presumably the rent in pacific heights is fairly high and, you know, it's not going to go down any. when there's a vacancy, the rent is whatever the new rent is. and, so, -- and they're vacant now. affording to what my understanding is, if they were under inclusionary units, that's the 60th percentile ami, which means if they're rental that's what they would have to be rented for. i don't have the number off the top of my head. it would depend how many people you have. presumably you wouldn't have more than two per studio, although you could. that would -- i think that's the limit. and that sets what that rate

is. if they were sold as condos, then it would be 100 percentile, it does make ami. there isn't anything that exists in pacific heights, a couple small units that could be purchased at a very affordable rate. normally i would be in favor of having more bedrooms, but the other good thing is it recaptures the rear yard which should have never been taken away in the first place because you have a rear yard requirement usually for -- even for single-family homes. this recaptures that space for the use of all three. we'll see what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner borden. >> i stand very supportive. i thought it was an interesting concept. we always talk about the issue around preserving rent control housing and the point is true. i looked on craigslist and the cheapest two bed ram apartment in